Smt. Vimla Thakur v. State Government Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3821 of 2020 • Smt. Vimla Thakur W/o Shri S. K. Chiravan, Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Nursing Superintendent At C.I.M.S., Bilaspur District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Government Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director. Directorate Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel Bhawan, D.K.S. Premises, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintendent, Medical Education, C.I.M.S., Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 30-09-2020

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Nursing Superintendent. Subsequently she obtained the degree of B.Sc. Nursing Course. Initially gradation list was issued on 10-4-2019 wherein name of the

petitioner appeared at serial No.4. Subsequently, letter was issued on 23-7-2000 (Annexure P/2) wherein objections were invited to the interim gradation list which was served to the petitioner through respondent No.3 on 31-7-2020 and immediately objection was raised by the petitioner by Annexure P/7 dated 31-7-2020 that in the new gradation list her name does not appear at all. It is stated that the petitioner has not resigned from service and till date she is in service. He would further submit that despite such application (Annexure P/7) having been given on 31-7-2020, the same has not been decided.

3. Perusal of the documents would show that on an earlier occasion, name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.4 in the gradation list which was issued on 1-4-2019 and thereafter by letter dated 23-7-2020 (Annexure P/6) objections were invited in respect of interim gradation list to which petitioner claimed that it was received by her on 31-7-2020 and immediately objection was made as her name did not appear at all in the new gradation list. It is obvious that if a person is in the service, his/her name ought to have been included in the gradation list and if name of the petitioner is not included in the new gradation list, then obviously, it appears that there has been mistake from respondent authorities.

4. In view of the above, the respondent No.2 - Director, Directorate Medical Education is directed to decide the representation dated 31-7-2020 of the petitioner (Annexure P/7) before finalization of the gradation list within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the above observations, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju